Visitor:

FAQs Index

Man was designed to eat meat!

Humans are NOT natural meat eaters. : ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt72EPHpS_U

AR Response:

It is simply not relevant whether man was originally designed, or evolved, to eat meat. Animal rights activists don't eat meat for reasons of compassion.

Response to response:

There's a bit more to it than that. Vegetarians make a choice that is contrary to their human design in order to provide that compassion. As for humans being designed to eat meat not being relevant? That's quite a stretch. It's not only relevant, it's at the core of the debate. If a proven fact gets in the way of your argument, you may ignore it, sidestep it, or try and disprove it. To call it irrelevant not only flies in the face of logic, but it also damages the credibility of your argument.

AR Response:

Person A says that they don't eat meat because they don't want to embrace animal abuse.

Person B comes along as says "But man was designed to eat meat!"

Person B's statement does not refute statement A's in any way. It is entirely IRRELEVANT.

It is called a logical fallacy of distraction. Please follow this link for list of logical fallacies.

Response:

In that context, I'll allow it. But when A comes along and says " Eating animals is wrong", it becomes pertinent.

AR Response:

The only time it is logical to respond with arguments showing that man WAS designed to eat meat is if a person says "I don't eat meat because man was not designed to eat meat."

The statement "Eating animals is wrong" is not a complete sentence, as it requires a reason for the claim.

"Eating animals is morally wrong" is almost complete is one explains their moral code.

"Eating animals is morally wrong because animals have a right to life" is a complete statement. You may agree or disagree, but whether or not a person was "designed to eat meat" is still irrelevant.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com